London Police Criticized Over Response to Vigil for Sarah Everard
The Clapham Common bandstand is located where London’s Metropolitan Police shut down a vigil for Sarah Everard on March 13. (Wikimedia Commons)
The London Metropolitan Police (Met Police) are currently facing criticism regarding their response to the vigil of Sarah Everard, held in Clapham Common on March 13. Sarah Everard, 33 years old, disappeared while walking home from a friend’s house in Clapham, South London, on March 3. While the walk to her home in Brixton would normally have taken her just under an hour, police did not find her body in Kent until one week following her disappearance. They subsequently charged Wayne Couzens, a serving Met Police officer, with her kidnapping and murder. Though police have not yet released any details on Couzens’ motives or the evidence against him, a judge on March 16 announced his trial will begin on October 25.
While COVID-19 restrictions in England prohibit public gatherings, there are exemptions allowed for “reasonable excuses.” Although organizers of Everard’s vigil asked Met Police for assistance in arranging the vigil, the police declined, saying that such a demonstration was illegal under COVID-19 rules. The vigil was officially canceled the morning of March 13, for fear of violating lockdown rules, but hundreds showed up anyway.
Around 6 pm local time, Met Police approached the bandstand where women were making speeches, “trampling flowers in the process.” They then “formed a chain and moved in on the crowd.” Videos show officers pushing participants as they attempted to disperse the crowd.
Patsy Stevenson, one of four of the vigil attendees arrested by Met Police, recounted her experience in a Facebook video, lamenting, “I was arrested by police for standing there. I wasn’t doing anything. They threw me to the [ground]… I’m five-foot-two, and I weigh nothing, and several police were on my back trying to arrest me.” Officers released Stevenson with a fine after recording her name and address. Photos of Stevenson’s arrest have gone viral.
English government officials have criticized the police for this response. Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called the police’s actions “completely unacceptable,” while Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, described videos from the vigil as “upsetting,” and asked the Met Police for a “full report on what happened.” Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, wrote on Twitter the night of March 13 that he found the Met Police’s response “deeply disturbing,” noting that women should have been allowed to peacefully mourn Sarah Everard.
Commissioner of the Met Police Cressida Dick defended the police, stating, “We had a really big crowd that gathered, lots of speeches and, quite rightly, as far as I can see, my team felt this [was] now an unlawful gathering, which pose[d] a considerable risk to people’s health.” Helen Ball, the Assistant Commissioner, also attempted to justify the police response, arguing, “the pandemic is not over and gatherings of people from… across London and beyond are still not safe.”
Khan was not satisfied with the Met’s explanations and requested that the Independent Office for Police Conduct investigate the actions of police officers at the vigil.
The vigil conflict has reignited debates over the “Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Bill” currently being considered in Parliament. If the bill passes, its measures will allow police to impose time and noise limits on protests. The bill also allows for a maximum jail term of ten years for the destruction and damaging of public statues, a punishment that is double the minimum sentence for rape. More than 150 organizations have signed an open letter to the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Justice, which decries the bill as “an attack on some of the most fundamental rights of citizens.”
On March 14, the day after the vigil, the Labour Party announced its members would vote against the bill, instead of abstaining as previously planned. In the announcement, David Lammy, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, explained the decision, saying, “This is no time to be rushing through poorly thought-out measures to impose disproportionate controls on free expression and the right to protest.” Jess Phillips, a Labour Member of Parliament, called the bill “an Abusers’ Charter because it does more to silence women who speak up and protest against a lack of safety than it does to protect us.”
Alternately, the Conservative Party has said the bill provides protection for women, with Priti Patel noting that it “will end the halfway release of those convicted for sexual offenses such as rape.” Despite Labour’s objections, the bill survived its initial Parliamentary vote on March 16. It will now proceed to the committee stage, during which Members of Parliament may debate its clauses and propose amendments.